GUWAHATI: Acting on a petition challenging an Assam tribunal’s order declaring a woman a “foreigner” despite her submitting eight documents, the Gauhati high court has ruled that an individual’s link to her “projected parents” must be supported by “admissible evidence” for her citizenship to be established. A bench of justices Manojit Bhuyan and Pathivjyoti Saikia also ruled that oral testimony without any documentary evidence isn’t admissible in this case. Petitioner Nur Begum was declared a foreigner after the tribunal refused to accept any of the eight documents she had submitted as proof that she was a resident of Assam before March 24, 1971, the cut-off for citizenship cited in the Assam Accord of 1985. The documents include a school certificate mentioning that Nur is the daughter of Raju Hussain of Golaghat and a certificate issued by the government gaonburah (village headman) of Duliagaon, certifying that she is Hussain’s third daughter. Nur had also submitted a caste certificate saying that she belongs to the native Jolha Muslim community along with a copy of the voters list of 1997 that contains the name of her “projected grandmother”, Jamila Nisha. A copy of the voters list of 1966 was meant to prove that Janurathdin, her “projected grandfather”, was an Indian citizen. Another copy of the 1966 electoral rolls was submitted to establish Janurathdin’s link with one Jamunadin. A copy of a jamabandi (land document) for surveyed villages, including Duliagaon, was forwarded as evidence that Nur’s “projected father” was a resident. A voter identity card issued to one Jahorun Hussain, her “projected mother”, was part of the documentation. “Apart from the documents produced and exhibited as above, no other documents, as admissible in evidence, were brought on record to demonstrate and establish any kind of relationship/linkage to the projected father Raju Hussain, grandfather Janurathdin and grandmother Jamila Nisha,” the court said. “Reflection of a name in a document is wholly insufficient and without relevance if the writ petitioner is unable to connect herself to such entity by means of cogent, reliable and admissible document/evidence.” According to the court, the petitioner couldn’t produce “a single voter list in her name showing her relationship with the projected parents”.